Diaries

With news reports continuing to expose more violations on almost a weekly basis, it may still be premature to estimate the types of NCAA penalties the Ohio State football program may ultimately face. But with the information already available, it appears that the Buckeyes could be headed for some of the fiercest sanctions the NCAA has imposed in over twenty years. Times have certainly changed, and medieval penalties like TV bans or the vaunted SMU “death penalty” are probably off the table. But with major college sports seemingly on the brink of a plunge into lawlessness, the infractions committee is likely to feel enough pressure to impose sanctions at least as stiff as similar offenders from the past. Here’s a look at some prior NCAA scandals with elements similar to the malfeasance in Columbus, which—if the infractions committee wants to be consistent with its past punishments—may supply some guidance as to just what kind of damage the NCAA cyclone will do when it finally touches down.

Free Shoes University

What happened: A Las Vegas sports agent made cash payments to at least 9 star players on Florida State’s MNC-winning football team, and funded at least one “after-hours shopping spree” in which players received shoes, coats, and other gear on the agent’s dime. This most famously included a 1993 excursion to a Tallahassee Foot Locker, which ended with four carloads of FSU players carting off $6,000 worth of merchandise. As Corey Sawyer, one of the players involved, later told Sports Illustrated, “We just bought out Foot Locker, period. At least half the football team was there.”

Sanctions Imposed: One year probation

Relevance to OSU Scandal: Pretty similar to Tatgate in terms of the numbers of players involved, the nature of the infractions, and the amount of money the players received.

Key Differences with OSU Scandal: (1) while there were some indications that FSU coaches may have suspected that players had received improper benefits and did not take prompt action, this was never proven, and there was absolutely no evidence of a purposeful cover-up like at OSU; (2) the free shoes scandal was not coupled with a “test-drive our cars forever” policy at a local dealership

Sanctions for OSU are likely to be: much greater, both because the OSU scandal is substantially more egregious and because the NCAA was heavily criticized for the laughably weak sanction it gave FSU for an infraction involving “half the football team.”

2. The USC/Reggie Bush Scandal

What happened: USC star Reggie Bush set up a “business” with a sports agent, through which members of Bush’s family received benefits, including cash and a house, estimated at nearly $280,000 in value. This happened at the same time as a separate scandal involving USC basketball star OJ Mayo, resulting in a dreaded “lack of institutional control” charge. Trojans head football coach Pete Carroll, who had encouraged sports agents to hire USC players for internships, was found to have known about the improper benefits.

Sanctions Imposed: Two-year bowl ban, loss of 10 scholarships for three years (30 total), four-year probation in football, plus forfeiture of wins and championships; one-year post-season ban, loss of 3 scholarships over two years, and recruiting penalties in basketball

Relevance to OSU Scandal: Probably the most significant point of commonality is that the USC head football coach was aware of the improper benefits but did not report them, and may have had a hand in facilitating the infractions (similarly, Tressel may have steered players to the Kniffen car dealership and may have connected Terrelle Pryor to greenpalmed boosters like Ted Sarniak). While not engaging in an OSU-style cover-up, USC also failed to satisfactorily cooperate with the NCAA investigators. The USC and OSU scandals are also close in time.

Key Differences with OSU Scandal: (1) Despite rampant speculation that players other than Reggie Bush received improper benefits, Bush was the only football player clearly proven to have done so; (2) USC violations spanned multiple sports whereas OSU’s violations were concentrated in football*

*Of course, it is possible that the Jim Tressel violations could date back to Jim O’Brien era in Buckeye hoops (see: M. Clarett) ; also, a recent report suggested reporters from ESPN are looking into possible point-shaving activity by OSU players, probably in basketball.

Sanctions for OSU are likely to be: About the same. The USC sanctions seem to have established a new standard in the current era, in which TV bans (let alone the “death penalty”) are considered cruel & unusual. The OSU facts are arguably worse, with an active cover-up and proof of widespread player involvement, but so if the NCAA finds the violations are limited to one sport then they might be less likely to drop the LOIC hammer.

3. Michigan Hoops – Ed Martin Scandal

What Happened: Four Michigan basketball stars (Chris Webber, Mo Taylor, Louis Bullock, and Robert Traylor), and possibly a fifth (Albert White), accepted a total of more than $600,000 in “loans” from basketball booster Ed Martin—a former Ford Motor Co. electrician who also ran a numbers racket at Detroit auto plants. Michigan coaches Bill Frieder and Steve Fischer allowed Martin access to the players and the program despite knowing of repeated instances in which Martin supplied or attempted to supply improper benefits to players or their families. The NCAA learned of these violations through an investigation it launched following a 1996 roll-over car accident involving several players returning to Ann Arbor from a Detroit house party, when media reports indicated that UM had violated a rule against transporting a recruit (Mateen Cleaves) more than 30 miles from campus.

Sanctions Imposed: One year post-season ban, four years’ probation, loss of 4 scholarships over four years, ten-year “disassociation” from Webber, Bullock, Taylor, and Traylor, forfeiture of wins, championships, and post-season honors. (Contrary to popular belief, the hiring of Brian Ellerbee was not an NCAA-imposed sanction).

Relevance to OSU Scandal: (1) these scandals are remarkably similar in the nature of the violations and in spanning long time periods; (2) the chairman of the NCAA infractions committee, Thomas Yeager, referred to the UM scandal as “one of the three or four most egregious violations of NCAA bylaws ever,” and the OSU scandal surely deserves a similar description.

Sanctions for OSU are likely to be: somewhat greater. The Ed Martin investigation dragged on for six years, the A.D. and all of the players and coaches implicated in the scandal had left by the time the sanctions came down—a factor that may have led to some leniency on the part of the NCAA; by contrast, the NCAA appears to be moving much more quickly in OSU’s case, and will likely impose the sanctions while delinquent players, coaches, and administrators are still in C-Bus. This could change at the end of the 2011 season if, as is widely expected, Luke Fickell is replaced as HC by an outsider with a clean rep. But this may be easier said than done for OSU administration if the players rally behind Fickell and turn in another 11-win season.

4. Alabama Football Recruiting Scandal

What Happened: Numerous Alabama boosters were found to have made large cash payments—many over $10,000 and one case $115,000—to high school coaches in return for steering recruits to sign with the Crimson Tide. One recruit received the use of a car in return for his commitment to Alabama. A booster was also found to have made cash payments directly to a recruit, but this violation occurred outside the NCAA’s limitations period. The scandal, which involved conduct beginning in 1995, was exacerbated by Alabama’s status as a “repeat offender,” having been placed on probation in 1995 due to (former player) Antonio Langham accepting money from an agent and thus competing while ineligible during the 1993 season.

Sanctions Imposed: Two-year bowl ban, five years’ probation, loss of 21 scholarships over three years

Relevance to OSU Scandal: The Alabama sanctions were the heaviest the NCAA had imposed on a football program, short of the death penalty, until the USC sanctions—and media reports (if you believe them) suggest the NCAA seriously considered the death penalty in Alabama’s case. Yet, the Alabama scandal appears to have been even more egregious than the USC scandal. This may indicate that the NCAA has stiffened its overall level of discipline. Another point of similarity is that the Alabama investigation turned up evidence of gross violations (e.g., a $20,000 payment to a recruit) that were outside the NCAA limitations period; similarly, Tressel appears to have a well-documented history of misconduct that may not be admissible in connection with the present OSU proceedings (ahem, Clarett, ahem, hack, cough, Ray Isaac, ahem...).

Key Differences with OSU Scandal: (1) Alabama was largely punished for allowing boosters to pay high school coaches, not for providing benefits to recruits directly (as the OSU boosters appear to be doing); (2) it is not yet clear what the NCAA will be able to prove regarding the extent of OSU coaches’ involvement in arranging or “not noticing” the receipt of improper benefits by players.

Sanctions for OSU are likely to be: about the same. See USC above.

5. Pell Grant Scandal at The U

What Happened: Between 1989 and 1991, an “academic advisor” at Miami helped 50 or more athletes obtain over $200,000 in federal Pell Grants by submitting falsified applications. Since the players had full-ride scholarships, the grant money went directly into their pockets. In the wake of the scandal, SI called on Miami to disband its football program, and reported that “[f]ifty-seven players were implicated in a financial-aid scandal that the feds call ‘perhaps the largest centralized fraud upon the federal Pell Grant program ever committed.’" The ensuing investigation also uncovered over $400,000 of other financial aid improperly paid to 141 football players, as well as other improprieties regarding a drug test policy.

Sanctions Imposed: One-year bowl ban, loss of 31 scholarships over three years, one-year bowl ban; also, the academic advisor who prepared the false applications was sentenced to three years in prison

Relevance to OSU Scandal: While the nature of the infractions are considerably different, the end results are the same—large numbers of players receiving improper benefits having a relatively low cash value. With the Miami case appearing objectively much more egregious than the OSU violations, the penalty ultimately assessed seems to suggest that the NCAA will not seriously consider scholarship reductions much above 30, or bowl bans lasting longer than one or two years, even for the worst offenses.

Key Differences with OSU Scandal: At least with the OSU scandal, the players have who took money and cars from willing boosters and memorabilia dealers appear to have violated only the NCAA bylaws, not criminal laws. In the Miami case, the funds were fraudulently procured from the U.S. government. Even with the botched cover-up, it is unlikely the OSU scandal will eclipse the Miami scandal in terms of sheer criminality. Also, the central role of Miami’s “academic advisor” lent a degree of plausible deniability to the coaching staff and athletic administrators—OSU’s folks are unlikely to enjoy that luxury.

Sanctions for OSU are likely to be: milder. Tressel may have been a liar and a cheat, but at least he does not appear to have allowed university officials to steal public funds to pay his players.

Oh, and since I know how much the mgoblog community likes charts:

School

Year of Sanctions

Violation(s)

Bowl Ban

Scholarship Reductions

Probation

Forfeited Wins/Titles

Florida State

1993

Players got $$ and free stuff

No

None

1 year

No

The U

1995

School officials got athletes grants illegally

1 year

31 (over 3 years)

3 years

No

Alabama

2002

Boosters paid HS coaches for recruits

2 years

21 (over 3 years)

5 years

Yes

Michigan (B-ball)

2003

Multiple players got $$ from one booster

1 year

4 (over 4 years)

2 years

Yes

U.S.C.

2011

Players in multiple sports got agent

2 years

30 (over 3 years)

4 years

Yes

Prediction for Ohio State (based on the above): 3-year bowl ban, reduction of 11 scholarships per year for 3 years (33-scholarship loss total), 5 years probation, forfeiture of wins and trophies for all games in which Terelle Pryor competed after he began receiving improper benefits

Some forseeable things that could aggravate the sanctions: (1) the NCAA amplifies the penalty due for having allowed it to happen less than five years after the OSU basketball scandal; or (2) violations in other sports (such as the rumored point-shaving in hoops) are uncovered; or (3) OSU fails to clean house after the 2011 football season

A name that has been popping up a lot since Michigan's camp is Kentucky safety Jeremy Clark. The 6-foot-4, 205-pound defensive back went up to Michigan to show the coaches what he has to offer. He now finds himself in a unique scenario, and I caught up with his coach today to talk about where Jeremy is at.

"He was offered a greyshirt today by the coaches, which could eventually lead to being a part of this class if the other safety they're in on doesn't commit," his coach said. The other safety he's talking about is likely Ohio defensive back Jarrod Wilson, who could be deciding as early as tomorrow.

To those that aren't familiar, a greyshirt would mean Jeremy would commit to Michigan and pay his way through school, likely only for a semester. Once the semester is up he would then be able to earn a scholarship, the greyshirt preserves his eligibility while not counting towards the 2012 class numbers.

"He's going to talk to his dad tonight and make a decision soon. He really fell in love with Michigan and the coaches," said his coach. "He said the facilities, the tradition, and the coaches just made him feel at home. He said it just felt right." Deciding to take the greyshirt from Michigan would show just how interested he is since he would be passing up full rides from North Carolina State, Akron, Ball State, CMU, Illinois, Ohio, and Toledo.

"Jeremy is a great kid, kind of quiet, but very hard worker. As far as on the field, he's a head hunter. I coached a kid that went to Notre Dame as a safety, and I think Jeremy has potential to be better," said his coach. Jeremy is a big defensive back at 6-foot-4, but his coach reports he ran a 4.4 forty time at both Kentucky and Cincinnati's camp. "He'll come down hill and play hard nosed football, too. He's got size and speed, and he just grew three to four inches in the last year. He went from being undiscovered to blowing up."

Clark's coach isn't sure when he'll decided but is supposed to speak with his father tonight to go over what exactly a greyshirt is. "I told Jeremy what [a greyshirt] is, so I'll tell his dad tonight," he said. "I don't know when he'll decide but I know he was as excited as I've ever seen him that Michigan still wanted him." It sounds like Clark could make his decision soon. The Michigan coaches explained to him that he can take the greyshirt and if Jarrod Wilson were to commit elsewhere then Clark would take that spot for the 2012 class.

I’m sorry to post again, but I think the improvements are significant enough – thanks to some intelligent feedback – to warrant a new posting.

Below is my attempt to aggregate the Rivals, Scout, 247, and ESPN rankings into a universal list. The goal is to draw from all of the data available to create a single list that eliminates the need to juggle rankings, ratings, and stars from four different sites when comparing prospects.

First, though, I’ll describe the logic and process.

The Process

There are countless ways to do this, and none of them is perfect. Importantly, even though I’m a Michigan fan, I never considered how this would look for Michigan before deciding how to do it. I’m trying to make this as objective and sensible as possible given time and data constraints.

The first decision one has to make is whom to include. In my first draft, I included only those who appeared in the top X lists for all four sites. Others thought that requirement was too rigid, so I’ve relaxed it here. The players appearing on this list appear in at least three of the four following lists: Rivals’ top 250, Scout’s top 300, 247’s top 247, and ESPN’s top 300. This eliminates the “veto power” nature of the first rankings (and the related outlier worries), since two sites would have to leave out a prospect for him to be excluded.

The next decision is how to rank those who make it. The most straightforward way to do this is to take the average ranking for each prospect across the four sites. In an ideal world, each site would rank every prospect so there would be no missing data. That isn’t reality. Therefore, I imputed rankings where they were missing. Here’s how I did in for each site (this is boring if you aren't interested):

ESPN – ESPN actually makes this the easiest, because they just rank thousands of prospects. Every ESPN ranking here reflects ESPN’s actual ranking.

Rivals – Rivals ranks its top 250 prospects and then gives elite prospects a star rating and a “Rivals rating” of 4.9 to 6.1. Using those ratings – and especially the Rivals rating – I found the range within which a recruit must fall (rankings-wise) and gave him the middle value. For example, Rivals has 222 guys rated a 5.8. Of them, 163 appear in the Rivals 250 (and 59 do not). That means that a prospect who receives a rating of 5.8 from Rivals but does not appear in the Rivals 250 must rank somewhere between 251 and 309. For this prospect, I would impute a ranking of 280.

247 – Exactly the same logic as with Rivals except that I had to trust them when they said, for example, that about 300 prospects are rated 90 or higher. (They don’t let you sort by prospect rating.)

Scout – This one might seem unusual, but I think it’s actually pretty accurate. Scout doesn’t have anything like a Rivals rating, but it ranks prospects at their positions. For those outside of the top 300, I took their position ranking and imputed based on where ESPN had that ranked overall. For example, Scout has Amos Leggett as its #22 cornerback. ESPN has its #22 CB ranked #404 overall, so this is Leggett’s imputed Scout ranking. (There was an exception to this with two TEs that I can explain if anyone's interested.)

I hope that makes sense, and I’m happy to answer questions in the comments. Please feel free to share feedback or point out errors.

Also, if one of these sites significantly changes its rankings in the next few days I’m going to kill someone.

The Product

rank

name

pos

mean

Rivals

Scout

247

ESPN

college

1

Dorial Green-Beckham

WR

2

1

2

2

3

2

Eddie Goldman

DT

6

4

15

3

2

3

Mario Edwards

DE

6.25

2

8

14

1

Florida State

4

Stefon Diggs

S

9.25

8

12

8

9

5

D.J. Humphries

OT

10.25

3

18

13

7

6

Arik Armstead

OT

10.5

23

1

1

17

USC

7

Andrus Peat

OT

11

15

3

4

22

7

John Theus

OT

11

7

4

6

27

9

Johnathan Gray

RB

11.5

14

9

15

8

Texas

10

Shaq Thompson

S

11.75

10

11

5

21

11

Noah Spence

DE

13.75

13

6

32

4

12

Gunner Kiel

QB

14.25

19

16

10

12

13

Eddie Williams

S

18

20

36

11

5

Alabama

14

Keith Marshall

RB

18.25

55

5

7

6

15

Malcom Brown

DT

22.75

26

26

26

13

Texas

16

Kyle Murphy

OT

23.5

28

27

9

30

17

Rushel Shell

RB

26.25

33

10

39

23

18

Jessamen Dunker

OT

27.5

49

22

25

14

Florida

19

Jameis Winston

QB

28.25

52

30

16

15

20

Ellis McCarthy

DT

29

6

29

28

53

21

Darius Hamilton

DE

29.25

5

25

20

67

22

Nelson Agholor

S

31.25

9

53

22

41

23

Joshua Garnett

OG

32.25

22

24

40

43

24

Cayleb Jones

WR

39.25

21

23

93

20

Texas

24

Tracy Howard

CB

39.25

25

55

58

19

26

Noor Davis

OLB

39.75

30

77

34

18

Stanford

27

Geno Smith

CB

40.25

47

54

29

31

28

Dante Fowler

DE

41.75

11

39

43

74

Florida State

29

Yuri Wright

CB

42

41

75

12

40

30

Shaq Roland

WR

43.5

63

17

48

46

31

Chris Black

WR

44

57

71

19

29

32

Landon Collins

S

45

17

59

53

51

33

Aziz Shittu

DT

47.5

12

41

49

88

33

Jordan Jenkins

DE

47.5

56

44

27

63

35

Kennedy Estelle

OT

47.75

35

43

65

48

Texas

36

Jonathan Taylor

DT

48

36

66

46

44

Georgia

37

Ifeadi Odenigbo

OLB

48.75

48

60

37

50

38

Kwon Alexander

OLB

49

77

34

69

16

39

Jarron Jones

DT

49.75

67

14

21

97

Penn State

40

Josh Harvey-Clemons

OLB

50.5

39

78

61

24

40

Trey Williams

RB

50.5

24

20

24

134

Texas A&M

42

Thomas Johnson

WR

56.5

50

87

54

35

Texas

43

Jabari Ruffin

OLB

57.25

46

104

45

34

USC

44

Ronald Darby

CB

57.5

64

32

64

70

Notre Dame

45

Jordan Simmons

OG

57.75

45

31

70

85

45

Kyle Kalis

OT

57.75

18

21

52

140

47

Dominique Wheeler

WR

59.25

66

48

78

45

48

Devin Fuller

QB

60.75

37

150

17

39

49

Chris Casher

DE

61.5

83

57

96

10

Florida State

50

Durron Neal

WR

65

32

61

105

62

Oklahoma

51

Tommy Schutt

DT

65.5

29

47

51

135

52

Eli Harold

OLB

71.25

59

58

38

130

53

Channing Ward

DE

73

120

37

41

94

54

Adolphus Washington

DE

74.75

86

19

98

96

54

Barry Sanders

RB

74.75

121

50

50

78

56

Ricky Parks

TE

77.75

92

80

66

73

Auburn

57

Zach Banner

OT

79.75

31

46

117

125

58

Connor Brewer

QB

80.5

123

117

56

26

Texas

59

Avery Johnson

WR

80.75

43

83

155

42

LSU

60

Tee Shepard

CB

83.5

51

49

145

89

Notre Dame

61

Carlos Watkins

DT

84.5

76

91

30

141

62

Jonathan Bullard

DE

84.75

16

106

136

81

63

Alex Ross

RB

86.5

183

89

36

38

Oklahoma

64

Quay Evans

DT

87.5

169

7

141

33

65

Joel Caleb

WR

89.5

44

210

55

49

66

Davonte Neal

WR

91

136

114

86

28

67

Brock Stadnik

OT

91.25

165

69

72

59

South Carolina

68

Torshiro Davis

OLB

93.75

97

136

71

71

LSU

69

Travis Blanks

S

94.25

27

124

215

11

Clemson

70

Erik Magnuson

OT

96

34

96

85

169

Michigan

71

Zach Kline

QB

96.25

40

128

157

60

California

72

Mario Pender

RB

98

53

88

204

47

Florida State

73

T.J. Yeldon

RB

98.5

58

105

110

121

Auburn

74

Brian Poole

CB

99

75

42

143

136

Florida

75

Reggie Ragland

MLB

102.75

217

35

47

112

Alabama

76

Jordan Diamond

OT

103

209

40

60

103

77

LaDarrell McNeil

S

105.25

107

51

83

180

78

Peter Jinkens

OLB

106

101

101

166

56

Texas

79

Byron Marshall

RB

108.25

90

118

135

90

80

Se'von Pittman

DE

109.25

61

79

196

101

Michigan State

81

Germone Hopper

WR

109.75

102

172

101

64

Clemson

82

Javonte Magee

DT

110

127

81

44

188

83

Terry Richardson

CB

110.75

195

149

31

68

Michigan

84

Tyriq McCord

DE

111

60

181

103

100

85

Brian Nance

OLB

113.75

73

125

67

190

86

Avery Young

OT

114.25

38

13

287*

119

87

Dan Voltz

OG

115

154

99

23

184

Wisconsin

87

Kendall Sanders

CB

115

54

94

142

170

Oklahoma State

89

Devonte Fields

DE

115.75

147

145

102

69

TCU

89

Kent Taylor

TE

115.75

68

63

185

147

91

Michael Starts

OG

116.5

148

70

119

129

Texas Tech

92

Anthony Alford

QB

117.25

105

230

35

99

93

Justin Shanks

DT

118.75

111

84

162

118

94

Angelo Jean-Louis

WR

119

113

223

88

52

Miami (FL)

95

Evan Boehm

C

122

130

100

203

55

Missouri

96

Royce Jenkins-Stone

MLB

123.25

87

115

174

117

Michigan

97

James Ross

MLB

123.5

143

73

84

194

Michigan

98

Jordan Payton

WR

124.25

96

56

199

146

USC

99

Derrick Woods

WR

124.5

81

180

109

128

100

Elijah Shumate

S

124.75

112

93

76

218

101

Brian Kimbrow

RB

128.75

80

153

128

154

102

Sterling Shepard

WR

129.25

220

108

131

58

Oklahoma

103

Matt Davis

QB

131.25

144

38

187

156

Texas A&M

104

Brionte Dunn

RB

131.75

124

28

154

221

Ohio State-ish

105

Colin Thompson

TE

133.75

197

95

160

83

Florida

105

Zeke Pike

QB

133.75

72

33

18

412*

Auburn

107

P.J. Williams

S

134.5

173

127

124

114

Florida State

108

Dwayne Stanford

WR

134.75

93

107

228

111

109

Isaac Seumalo

OG

135.5

175

168

134

65

109

Jaquay Williams

WR

135.5

94

116

173

159

Auburn

111

Bralon Addison

WR

137

155

119

137

137

Texas A&M

112

Ronnie Stanley

OT

140

149

76

62

273

113

Sheldon Day

DT

142.25

280*

65

80

144

114

Deon Bush

S

142.5

65

264

175

66

114

Matt Jones

RB

142.5

157

82

178

153

Florida

116

Kevon Seymour

CB

143.75

85

193

132

165

117

Jelani Hamilton

DE

145

79

62

92

347*

Miami (FL)

118

Alex Carter

S

145.5

62

287

118

115

Stanford

119

Dillon Lee

MLB

148

232

207

81

72

Alabama

120

Lorenzo Phillips

OLB

149.5

146

199

111

142

121

Vadal Alexander

OG

151.25

280*

126

108

91

122

Jalen Cope-Fitzpatrick

TE

152

180

123

183

122

123

Wayne Morgan

S

155.75

139

270

33

181

124

Paul Thurston

OT

159.5

137

112

231

158

Nebraska

124

Timothy Cole

OLB

159.5

99

151

129

259

Texas

126

Scott Starr

MLB

160.75

110

186

106

241

USC

127

Korren Kirven

DT

161.5

280*

194

63

109

128

Marcus Maye

S

162.75

128

195

120

208

129

Cyrus Jones

RB

165.25

224

250

150

37

130

Denzel Devall

DE

165.75

125

232

91

215

131

Eugene Lewis

WR

166.25

162

67

219

217

132

Leonard Floyd

DE

166.75

159

121

94

293

Georgia

133

Justin Thomas

WR

168.75

205

217

82

171

Alabama

134

Reginald Davis

WR

169.25

214

120

261*

82

Texas Tech

135

Amos Leggett

CB

169.5

104

404*

75

95

Miami (FL)

136

Troy Hinds

DE

170.75

215

72

114

282

137

Greg Garmon

RB

172.25

184

68

232

205

138

Max Tuerk

OT

172.5

103

243

287*

57

USC

139

Drae Bowles

WR

173.25

109

300

182

102

139

Leonard Williams

DE

173.25

71

228

287*

107

139

Vince Biegel

OLB

173.25

95

218

214

166

Wisconsin

142

Faith Ekakitie

DT

173.5

100

216

104

274

142

J.J. Denman

OT

173.5

242

111

181

160

Penn State

144

John Michael McGee

C

173.75

82

169

210

234

145

Camrhon Hughes

OT

174.75

89

74

261*

275

Texas

146

Brandon Beaver

CB

175.25

114

166

77

344*

147

Quanzell Lambert

MLB

178

117

204

127

264

148

Kenyan Drake

RB

180.5

280*

139

73

230

Alabama

149

Chris Muller

OT

183.75

69

324*

100

242

Rutgers

150

Patrick Miller

OT

184

199

222

113

202

151

Keivarae Russell

RB

185

106

152

42

440*

151

Orlando Thomas

CB

185

119

269

133

219

Texas

153

Camren Williams

OLB

185.25

243

138

116

244

Penn State

154

Ty Darlington

C

186

118

241

287*

98

155

D.J. Foster

RB

186.5

74

200

287*

185

156

Aaron Burbridge

WR

189.25

134

90

229

304*

156

Ken Ekanem

DE

189.25

185

191

159

222

158

Ishmael Adams

CB

191.5

98

253

201

214

159

Curtis Riser

OG

192.5

244

220

123

183

Texas

159

Marvin Bracy

WR

192.5

245

177

238

110

161

Joshua Perry

OLB

194.75

131

231

235

182

Ohio State

162

Taylor McNamara

TE

196.5

84

302*

144

256

Arizona

163

Chris Wormley

DE

198.75

452*

113

57

173

164

Raphael Kirby

OLB

199

126

233

287*

150

Miami (FL)

165

Greg McMullen

DE

202

88

183

140

397*

Nebraska

166

Tyler Hayes

OLB

203.75

452*

122

115

126

Alabama

167

Cyler Miles

QB

204

160

272

138

246

Washington

168

Deaysean Rippy

OLB

205.5

247

103

146

326*

169

Dalvon Stuckey

DT

207.25

207

171

184

267

Florida State

169

Omari Phillips

OT

207.25

225

258

233

113

Florida

171

Jordan Watkins

DE

207.75

171

142

163

355*

172

Joe Bolden

OLB

211

167

238

287*

152

Michigan

173

Ronnie Feist

OLB

211.75

204

251

261*

131

LSU

174

Sean Price

TE

219.75

190

301*

164

224

175

Freddie Tagaloa

OT

220.25

206

219

188

268

176

Mike Davis

RB

220.75

122

234

198

329*

Florida

177

Kaiwan Lewis

MLB

221

280*

158

240

206

178

Jaleel Johnson

DT

223.25

140

203

261*

289

179

Nick James

DT

223.75

452*

110

107

226

180

Michael Barton

OLB

226

280*

182

205

237

California

181

Beniquez Brown

OLB

227

452*

134

195

127

182

Martin Aiken

DE

227.5

189

97

243

381*

183

Paul Boyette

DT

227.75

168

224

323*

196

Texas

184

Michael Moore

DE

229.25

176

286

125

330*

Virginia

185

Jeremi Powell

OLB

229.5

218

275

170

255

Florida

186

Warren Ball

RB

230

212

52

206

450*

Ohio State

187

Reggie Daniels

S

231.5

280*

154

208

284

188

Adam Bisnowaty

OT

234.75

177

302*

202

258

189

Shane Callahan

OT

235.25

191

173

323*

254

Auburn

190

Jonathan Williams

RB

238

170

209

246

327*

Missouri

191

Chad Voytik

QB

242.5

153

277

368*

172

191

Deontay McManus

WR

242.5

108

247

139

476*

191

Mike Madaras

OT

242.5

230

260

287*

193

Maryland

194

Evan Baylis

TE

242.75

280*

189

225

277

Oregon

195

Bart Houston

QB

246.25

452*

160

197

176

Wisconsin

196

Jordan Diggs

S

248.25

280*

268

158

287

197

Deion Bonner

S

252.5

452*

176

153

229

198

Lacy Westbrook

OG

255.75

213

137

186

487*

199

Trevor Knight

QB

264.75

228

274

261*

296

Texas A&M

200

Amara Darboh

WR

268.75

194

161

148

572*

201

Jody Fuller

WR

272.75

210

543*

152

186

202

Malcolm Lewis

WR

274

164

596*

193

143

203

Armani Reeves

CB

274.25

187

144

59

707*

204

Darreus Rogers

WR

280.75

172

135

74

742*

USC

205

Zac Brooks

WR

282.5

174

278

126

552*

206

Tom Strobel

DE

284

231

211

169

525*

Michigan

207

Quinteze Williams

DE

285.25

452*

279

190

220

Florida

208

Bryce Treggs

WR

288

133

102

230

687*

209

Gabriel Marks

CB

289.5

166

239

172

581*

210

Ondre Pipkins

DT

295

246

175

149

610*

211

Kyle Dodson

OT

302.25

152

187

192

678*

Wisconsin

212

Brandon Fanaika

OG

308.5

202

257

213

562*

213

Edward Pope

S

319.5

193

280

218

587*

TCU

214

Quinshad Davis

WR

321

250

292

234

508*

215

Leonte Carroo

WR

326.25

211

86

245

763*

216

Deontay Greenberry

WR

331.5

115

244

209

758*

Notre Dame

217

Michael Richardson

DE

371.25

756*

294

226

209

Texas A&M

218

Kwontie Moore

MLB

383.25

116

1054*

97

266

Virginia

219

Germain Ifedi

OG

384

756*

285

242

253

Missouri

*imputed

A final note about ESPN

Several commenters in my previous diary expressed that they’d like to see these rankings without ESPN. I don’t think there’s enough reason or evidence to dismiss ESPN entirely. However, for those who are interested, here’s how some recruits would rank among the above prospects if ESPN were excluded: Kalis (23), Washington (55), Magnuson (57), Ross (76), Dunn (79), Diamond (82), Richardson (104), Jenkins-Stone (106), Stanford (123), Burbridge (131), Pipkins (169), Strobel (181), Wormley (183), Bolden (201). Of course, the list of prospects included would change if ESPN were ignored altogether.

A lot of Michigan fans like to throw around the tired phrase that Hoke and his coaches get it. They really understand "it", and what "it's" all about. We know the word "it" is ambiguous; MGoBloggers like to throw around the phrase sarcastically so as to make fun of those who think that a coach who gets it is somehow better than a coach who doesn't "get it," whatever that means.

"It" being loosely defined as tradition, then by and large, I think the Michigan fanbase popularly believes that having a coach familiar with the traditions of the program is a good thing. But why? Other than vain aesthetics, what does a coach familiar with the program do for our team beyond what an "outsider" might do?

I think many MGoBloggers have found themselves asking the above question. I'd contend that there are actually many positives to having coaches familiar with traditions than having coaches who aren't familiar with traditions. Things it benefits include (but are not limited to):

It helps the players understand the program. It helps them to understand that they are not just playing football, but they are playing football for a cause. It increases their motivation. They are not just playing anywhere: they are playing at Michigan, one of the greatest college football powers of the past 132 years.

It helps the coaches and the fan base find common ground. We've talked before about how a coach's job is not really PR, but PR is still a big part in our media-centric world. Fans have to like the coach. Tradition is a huge selling point for liking a coach. Someone who understands the tradition likes to listen to other people who understand it.

It carries on the legacy of greatness. Rather than just trying to be a great school for football, Michigan has to be its own great school for football. We are more likely to sell ourselves to recruits well if we have an established "brand," as DB might call it. We have to protect the brand: to maintain the academic integrity, the clean record, the traditions, the alumni connections, the in-state connections and relationships...which brings me to #4.

It attracts a certain type of recruit: namely, those in-state and in the state down south. It's good to recruit elsewhere nationally, of course, but winning in-state recruiting battles can make a huge difference. These are kids who have grown up watching Michigan football more than anyone else. Maybe their mom or dad or aunt or uncle went to UM. They will have a dedication to the program that a kid who comes just to play at a good school and a usual BCS contender will have. The motivations of the kids the tradition attracts are not selfish; they really want to serve the program rather than just rack up W after W and yard after yard. The great thing is: those who want to serve the program want to do that too. But it's more about honor and sacrifice to make it great.

None of this is to say that an "outsider" can't do the same as all the above points, but I think the odds are better with a coach familiar with the traditions and program, one who "gets it" rather than one who doesn't. There may also be drawbacks about keeping the coaching succession "in the family," as well, of course. But that doesn't mean it's without its benefits.

Frankly, I think it's best to have, in general, someone who has coached or grown up in the Big Ten area as our coach. I think Hoke's appreciation for tradition is not only a PR response to the tenure he follows, but something he actually does feel pretty genuine about as he coaches. After all, he grew up in Ohio and his family is closely connected to Bo and Woody. The question is: can he coach at the requisite level? Well...that's a topic for a different diary.

It’s time for Part II of my Introduction to Lacrosse Recruiting. In this section, I will compare Michigan’s roster to some of the top programs in Division 1 Lacrosse.

Before we get into Michigan’s roster, I will explain the data that I tried to track with all of the rosters. First, I tracked the number of Inside Lacrosse Top 100 players (lacrosse&rsquao;s equivalent of the Rivals 250). The other piece of data I kept track of, for lack of a better term, is the “pedigree” of the players by following their location and whether or not their high school is listed on Laxpower.com’s Top 100 High Schools for 2011 (the BCS rankings of high school lacrosse, Laxpower uses a formula to rank all 3,000+ high schools that play lax in the country from #1-#3,000. It has yet to state why it is better than a playoff). As the comments from my last post showed, the lacrosse community assumes that only the top-ranked national high schools produce D1-level players, and the only players on these top college teams are from the four major hotbeds (New York, Maryland/DC, New Jersey, Pennsylvania).

My hope is that we can see whether or not these locations and schools actually produce D1 talent in the numbers most people assume. That will give us a sense of how long it will take Michigan become a nationally competitive lacrosse program.

I know I should have averaged out the last 4 years of Laxpower ratings rather than just taking one year seemingly at random, but at the end of the day all national rankings are based mostly on reputation so there is not great variance in who is in the Top 100 year after year. This is an opening analysis, so if anyone wants to make it more precise, I’d love to read what you find.

Michigan Roster Analysis

I started with Michigan’s roster from 2007, the year before they won their first national title, and ended with the 2011 roster. In terms of location, here is where Michigan has drawn their players from over the past five years:

State

'07

%

'08

%

'09

%

'10

%

'11

%

MI

17

43.5

19

48.7

17

43.5

13

28.2

14

35

NY

6

15.3

4

10.2

4

10.2

5

10.8

1

2.5

NJ

6

15.3

4

10.2

4

10.2

4

8.7

2

5

MD

3

7.7

3

7.7

2

5.1

3

6.5

4

10

PA

1

2.5

1

2.5

1

2.1

2

5

CT

2

5.1

1

2.5

2

4.3

3

7.5

MA

1

2.5

1

2.5

2

4.3

1

2.5

VA

1

2.5

1

2.5

2

4.3

IL

3

7.7

1

2.5

2

5.1

4

8.7

1

2.5

CO

1

2.5

2

5.1

2

5.1

1

2.1

1

2.5

FL

1

2.5

1

2.1

1

2.5

DC

1

2.5

1

2.1

1

2.5

KY

1

2.5

MO

1

2.5

1

2.5

1

2.5

CA

1

2.5

1

2.5

3

6.5

2

5

OH

2

4.3

3

7.5

MN

1

2.1

1

2.5

UT

1

2.1

1

2.5

TX

1

2.5

Michigan’s roster has changed over the last five years as they became an MCLA juggernaut. The number of Michigan kids on the roster has dropped from a near majority in 2008 (nearly 49%) to a mere plurality this past season (35%). It has increased its draw from 9 states to 15 in 2011, which shows that the team’s name recognition increased as the team began winning MCLA titles.

The team has remained heavily dependent upon players from the Midwest. In 2007, the team had 21 players from the Midwest—almost 54% of the roster; in 2011, it had 21 players—51% of the roster. The East Coast representation has dropped slightly in this stretch, starting at 16 players (40%) and ending with 14 (35%). The remnants come from the South and the West.

Michigan has never signed an Inside Lacrosse Top 100 player, which should not be a surprise since it wasn’t a varsity team. In 2007 the team had 3 players from Top 50 high schools and 8 from the Top 100; 2008 had 3 Top 50 high schools, 8 Top 100; 2009 had 5 Top 50 and 10 Top 100; 2010 had 4 Top 50 and 9 Top 100; and in 2011 the team had 2 Top 50 high schools and 6 Top 100 high schools represented. On average, that comes out to 3.4 kids out of Top 50 high schools each season and 8.2 kids out of Top 100 high schools on the roster each season.

How Michigan Stacks Up Nationally

I chose eight schools to compare with Michigan’s roster. Here’s how I chose them (I will look at Michigan's conference, the ECAC, in my next entry):

Virginia, Maryland, Duke, Denver: The 2011 Final Four participants. Since that’s the ultimate goal for any program, those are the teams we want to compare ourselves to first

Cornell, Syracuse: They were the #1 and #2 seeds in the NCAA tournament, and champions of two of the toughest conferences in lacrosse (Ivy and Big East). They missed the Final Four, but were the class of lacrosse for most of the season

Johns Hopkins: They are the Notre Dame [Ed-M: ... when ND was relevant] of lacrosse. This year they were the #3 seed in the NCAA tournament. They have the most wins in lacrosse history and the most Final Fours even though they are not affiliated with a conference

Notre Dame: They were #1 for a good portion of the season, came in second in the Big East, and were NCAA runner ups in 2010. Also, they happen to be the closest to Ann Arbor in terms of location and were the last BCS school to add lacrosse (in 1981)

It also happens that these teams are ranked #1-8 in Inside Lacrosse’s way-too-early 2012 Preseason Poll.

Not infallible, but I hope you see the rationale. On to the breakdown!

One thing to note about the number of Young Guns on Duke: Their program took a big hit after the infamous “Duke Lacrosse Party/Sexual Incident/Legal Clusterfuck” of 2006. The program was suspended for a year, an entire senior class was granted an extra year of eligibility by the NCAA, and a new coach was brought in. Not surprisingly, that led to a junior class (class of 2008) that only had 2 Top 100 players. Expect a big bounce back in that number over the next 2 years for Duke.

Denver is an interesting case. They came out of nowhere this year to make the Final Four (they have made the NCAA before, but never before had it made it to the Final Four). They are in a strange location as they are the Westernmost D1 school. The closest school to them in terms of distance is Notre Dame [edit: unless you forget to count Air Force. So, one of two teams in Colorado and west of Notre Dame. Thanks for the catch, Tim], so they are on a bit of an Island.

On top of that, they are in their second year under the helm of legendary coach Bill Tierney. Tierney won 6 NCAA titles at Princeton before moving to Denver, so this would be the equivalent of Mack Brown leaving Texas to lead Villanova to the FBS. Tierney has said he thinks Colorado is a tremendous recruiting area, so it has more in-state talent than outsiders probably think. Interesting from a Michigan prospective since it shows how you can win from a new location, but also not relevant since we don’t have a Hall of Fame coach that is a living recruiting legend coming in to take the helm (not a shot at John Paul, just a fact).

Chart Overload and Feeling Overwhelmed, So What Does This All Mean?

We can see a couple of trends appear in the makeup of these teams. It turns out that the conventional wisdom is accurate: an overwhelming number of players on the top D1 teams in the country come from the Mid-Atlantic hotbeds. These 8 rosters included a total of 358 players. 25% of all the players on these Top 8 rosters are from New York. 18% of players on these rosters are Marylandians. Those two states alone constitute more than 40% of all top level college players. New Jersey (8%) and Pennsylvania (7%), not surprisingly, check in as the third and fourth most represented states, respectively. The hotbeds represent almost 60% of the players on these rosters. Extreme outlier Denver is the only program that does not have a majority of players from the hotbed.

We also see trends in what schools these players are getting recruited out of. Every school has at least 9 players on its roster from the current Laxpower Top 50 high schools; every school has at least 15 players from Top 100 high schools. The average number for these programs is 10.8 players from Top 50 high schools, and 18.5 players from Top 100 high schools. These schools carry 40-50 players on the roster, so between 20-25% of the roster is composed of players from these Top 100 high schools. Not surprisingly, the majority of these schools are in the Mid-Atlantic region. Michigan has 1 school in the Top 100, Illinois 1, Indiana 1, Ohio 3—there are few options in the region.

Finally, we see similar trends in quality of recruit. These schools average 20 Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on the roster, which comes to 5 per recruiting class. The two outliers are Cornell and Denver, who with 7 and 8 Young Guns respectively, are the only teams on the list with less than 15 Young Guns. If you eliminate these two outliers, the average jumps to 24.67 (or 6 per recruiting class). Inside Lacrosse provides this great map of where there Top 100 players have come from for the past four years. From 2007-2009, Michigan produced 3 Top 100 players (2 Brother Rice, 1 Detroit Country Day). The Midwest as a whole produced 13 (3 from Michigan, 2 Illinois, 8 from Ohio). For comparison sake, New York produced 27 in 2009 alone. There is some serious D1 talent in the state and region, but not the depth to rely solely on Michigan and its contiguous states.

So no matter how we slice it right now, location means a lot, and where you recruit seems to play a very serious role in how your team stacks up nationally.

What This Means For Michigan

Michigan is going to need a pretty serious overhaul of their roster before they are able to compete with the big boys for national championships. This should really only shock lacrosse players that haven’t played games outside the state of Michigan before. We’re going from having players who pay tuition and $1-3,000 dollars in dues per year (I don’t know Michigan’s figures specifically, but that’s typical for an MCLA program), to attempting to bring in the best players in the nation. We’re going to have to do things differently, and the faster we change, the faster we’ll be competitive.

So, how do we need to change? Here’s a chart that compares the regional make-up of 2011 Michigan’s roster to the Top 8 schools.

Region

% Michigan Roster

% Top 8's Roster

Midwest (MI, OH, MN, IL)

47.5

5.9

Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, MD, DE, PA)

25

58.7

New England (CT, MA, NH)

10

13.5

West (CA, UT, AZ, WA, OR, Canada)

5

12

South (VA, NC, GA, FL, TX, KY)

7.5

9.2

As stated before, the Mid-Atlantic represents nearly 60% of the players on the top programs. The Midwest represents less than 6% of the roster on those teams, and the state of Michigan has only produced 3 players total in the last four years that earned roster spots on these Top 8 programs. Michigan’s current roster is nearly 50% Midwestern players, and only 12.5% are from New York and Maryland. Michigan needs to cut the number of Midwestern recruits on its roster by 85%, more than double the number of players it recruits out of the Mid-Atlantic. Just as the Michigan football team cannot compete for national championships by recruiting players only from the state of Michigan, neither can the lacrosse program. While in the long term hopefully having a varsity team in state will increase the growth of high school lacrosse in Michigan, and consequently lead to more in-state talent, in the short run this presents a problem for Michigan.

So How Long Will This Take?

Good question. Most likely, Michigan will not have a recruiting class that reflects the school's attractiveness to the sorts of guys who play lacrosse on the East Coast until 2014. They will probably be getting in too late for top 2013 kids. After all, here’s a list of the current commits from the Class of 2012. All of the top schools have pretty much closed their recruiting with the exception of 1-2 spots for “athletic projects” or transfers. That means we’re looking at 5-6 years before we see a roster composed of dominant players from dominant regions that played for dominant high schools. That’s a sobering number—it means John Paul’s building project is much more along the lines of Tom Crean and Indiana basketball than Urban Meyer and Florida football.

There is one wildcard out there. We don’t know how long John Paul and Dave Brandon have talked about making Michigan a D1 program. If John Paul has known for a year, he may very well have spent the last 12 months getting in touch with high school players in the classes of 2012 and 2013. Maybe these players are listed as committed to a Duke or Syracuse, but were ready to switch their commitment if Michigan made the move to D1. This would mean Coach Paul’s been able to make headway with these players at the ground level, and isn’t just trying to scramble in at the last minute. If Paul was able to do this hush-hush recruiting, he may be able to sneak a couple of low-level Top 100 players in 2012 that buy into his vision, and then have a very good-to-great class in 2013. If that’s the case, we could be looking at 2-3 years before our roster on paper could hang on paper with the big boys.

I hope this gives you all a better sense of how the program will adjust to D1 status. My next diary will look at how Michigan’s roster stacks within it’s own conference, the ECAC. Please leave anything else you'd like me to include for next time in the comments.

Nasvhille offensive lineman Blake Bars (6'5", 275 lbs, 4 star) took in Ann Arbor with his father this past weekend. Bars has been a fast rising commodity within the past few months, which he attributes to a late release to his highlight film. I spoke with Blake tonight to talk about his visit to Michigan and when he'll be making his college choice. Here's a look at his film and what he had to say.

TOM: Now that you've taken your trip to Michigan where are you at overall?

BLAKE: I just talked to Coach Smith tonight, and that went really well. We talked about me potentially going [to Michigan] as a player and he told me I was a priority for them. He was really real with me and he wasn't giving me any BS. He told me to talk everything over with my family and to let him know when I'm ready.

TOM: With the Michigan visit do you feel more comfortable now talking to the coaches, like Coach Smith?

BLAKE: Definitely feel more comfortable that I went up there. We stayed up at Michigan on campus for six hours. I really got to know Coach Smith and Funk really well. I can really understand their philosophies. At the end of our visit all the coaches gathered in Coach Mattison's office and they were drilling me with questions about random easy going stuff. It was a fun and easy conversation, and that was something that really stuck out to me. How personable they were was really cool.

TOM: What was it like to see the facilities and the Big House?

BLAKE: It was awesome to be in the Big House without the fans there. We stood on the 50 yard line, and I can imagine when it's filled with the fans it's amazing. It was really exciting just standing there.

TOM: Did you get a chance to meet any of the current players?

BLAKE: We did see a few players there. The starting left tackle and starting right guard. They basically said hello and welcomed us. That was pretty special.

TOM: You told me that your dad went up there with you and that he's from Michigan originally. What was his reaction?

BLAKE: Yeah, he grew up in Farmington Hills and his reaction was very positive. Although he went to Notre Dame, I think we shared some mutual agreement on liking Michigan. He told me my decision is up to me and we both got some positive feedback from Michigan.

TOM: I know you said last time that your aunt was recruiting you to Michigan with baked goods. Was she trying again while you were up there?

BLAKE: Yeah, we went up to my grandma's house and she lives in Trenton, but she introduced us to everyone with hey my grandson is going to check out Michigan. Then we went over to my uncle's house and he told me I have some good options but at Michigan I would have him to come watch my games. They're really supportive though, and I also have family by Penn State and in Nashville naturally.

TOM: Earlier you had said Coach Smith told you to take your time, does that mean you're close to deciding?

BLAKE: Yeah, I'm going to make my decision within the next week. We're going to sit down and evaluate each school on a different number of levels. Talk about how I would fit in, the level of football, and what it would do for me after football. We'll just go from there and then say where I want to go. We might be taking one more visit this weekend to either Boston College or Florida, but that's if my mom can find a good flight. After that we'll be done with visits.

TOM: You said evaluate each school, who are you evaluating? How many schools are left?

BLAKE: I'm really evaluating a top five of Michigan, Penn State, Florida, LSU, and Vanderbilt. We'll just lay out all those schools and what they have to offer.